Now granted, I'm from the country, and you have to pump the sunshine in in the mornings, but did you just say Laremy Tunsil wouldn't have a commitable offer? Also, that he could visit, but he'd know that he didn't have a commitable offer? Watch College Football much, do you?

But make it perfectly clear that he doesn't have a spot unless one of the other guys decommits. That is of course assuming that the 5 OL promise was actually made and what not. Hoke's honesty and word are far more valuable to current and future classes than 1 recruit.

I don't have much of an opinion on private promises made between others; I just wonder, straight-up: What is the provenance and the evidence for Hoke's having "promised to take only 5 OL in this [2013] class"?

Good thing he didn't promise Justin Boren's parents that Michigan would give an offer to Zach, right? We'd be wondering how Michigan's family values had eroded so badly...

That kid's name is the name that should never be spoken. They were all over Kalis for decommitting but it's perfectly fine with them to suit up a kid that previously lined up against them on the actual playing field. That former starting center for Michigan..er...Ohio will never be spoken by name again.
Also, isn't it common knowledge that we take what we need first and then fill out the rest with top talent? I have a good family friend that sits on those sidelines (I was just speaking to last night about Kugler) that knows this is commonplace.

I doubt that Hoke said "I promise you Chris Fox et al., we will only take 5 OL this year". It was probably more like, "Weeeell we're probably looking at taking around 5 OL." I don't really think that's a contractual agreement. You're getting thirdhand information so you really don't know exactly what he said. The OL have to compete for a spot anyway so why should it matter to them if there's one more in the fold?

I had assumed that he had some insider info or something on the 5 OL thing. My point still stands that Hoke is a man of tremendous character who would not break his word (if he were to give it) for probably anything.
Additionally, I surmised that the reason we have had a rash of OL commits is to guarantee those guys their spots. Just a hunch.

I would let them visit, but know that we are already full on OL. If someone decommits then there would be a spot available. You don't want what happened with Stacey, and have no one you want to fill that spot.

Hoke would be acting hypocritically if he was committed somwhere and took official visits somewhere while telling our commits that they can't take official visits. As I'm fairly certain that Hoke's elgibility has been used up, I doubt that's the scenario. Perhaps the view that I'm taking is too literalistic, but I don't see the hypocrisy..

When a strict OPPOSITE is not possible, it's not that hard to find an equivalent. In this case, it's if Tunsil still has a commitable offer during his visit, and he decides to commit...

Hoke got commitments based on specific information, and he has certain expectations of his commits. If the equivalent respect isn't afforded to the commits despite the fact that Hoke still expects said respect from them, it's possible to construe that as hipocrisy.

That is the coach equivalent of being "commited somewhere and taking official visits elsewhere."

Of course you let him visit. If we lose a commit we need to be in on guys who can replace them. Also, there are other reasons to host visits. Visits are advertising for your program. You want the best guys in the country coming for visits and speaking highly of your program to the media and to their teammates. This is a no brainer...

I don't think it would be prudent of the coaches to simply stop allowing people to visit as it is still very early in the process. I do think,. however, that the staff needs to be as up front as they want their committs to be and let the visiting player know that at present they are not taking any other OL. If one decommitts there will be an open spot, but otherwise it's full.

I should also say that this is only the case IF Hoke and company told they other committs that they were only taking five OL. If they didn't actually say that then there isn't a problem, but if they did and would still take another, that would be an issue IMHE. Then it would look like they were just telling kids there were less spots in order to get them to committ. I think Hoke has to much integrity for that, but that is how it would look.

Is there a rule about how many OL we can take? A commit can only pledge to one school, but Hoke could sign a class of 22 OL if he wanted.. A target for how many recruits you want at a position is not exactly a commitment. After meeting specific needs, wouldn't Hoke be signing up the best available players anyway. If he's got 2-3 slots left after the "must haves" for positions of need, then why would it be disingenuous to sign another OL?

How is this a silly word game? Hoke's commitment to the player has nothing to do with other players at his position. That's why his commitment and the player's commitement are fundamentally different.At the time of a verbal commitment, 2 things happen:

1. The player commits to sign an LOI next February and subsequently join the team.

2. The coaches commit to accept the LOI and honor the player's scholarship offer.

The player exploring other schools puts #1 in question. Hoke allowing another player at the position to visit, or even accepting a commitment from another player at that position does nothing to put #2 in question. That's not a word game.

Now, if Hoke says, "I'm going to let Tunsil visit, and if he commits, one of these other 5 has to go," then he's a hypocrite. If Hoke promised these players that he'd only take 5 linemen, and the addition of a 6th hurts their chances for playing time, then he lied, although I don't think this would be hipocrisy. Either way I'll be happy to line up with my torch and pitchfork.

But, unless you have some proof that Hoke promised these kids that he was only taking 5 OL or that he intends to revoke an offer to one of them should Tunsil commit, then I fail to see how there is anything wrong with what he's doing.

The stance is, if you are committed you don't need to take visits, if you want to take visits, that is fine with Hoke, he just no longer considers you a commit.

How would letting a kid visit be in any way hypocritical? I think people make too much of the "stance" that Hoke has taken. It is faily innocuous. He just moves kids back to the precommitted status, as in no spot is being held for them.

If this OL wants to visit and Hoke takes a commit from him and then tells all 6 that he is still only taking 5... well, then you might have a point. Or if Hoke came out today and told them that he is taking 6 OL and says that he won't let any of them look around (which of course he can't anyway) then that might be hypocritical, anything less is just smart recruiting.

I'm convinced that Michigan sent a powerful message to Ondre Pipkins last year when it turned away Tommy Schutt. Communicating to these five kids that Michigan values them so highly that it would turn away Laremy Tunsil would send a similarly powerful message.

I feel silly having a meltdown that we turned down Pipkins when Pipkins was lowly rated then and Schutt was all 5 star and stuff. I suppose the coaches really do know what they're doing. Hoke uber alles

Agree with letting him visit, but not commit. He had his chance... missed the boat. But it's important to maintain a relationship with him, make him see what he may have missed out on, just in case one of the others has a change of heart in the next 11+ months.

Tom gets paid to drop information, once information goes public, as long as he is sourced as the contributor I see no problem with sharing information. Plagiarizing is a completely different story. Perhaps the more advertisers see him being sourced, the more desire they will have to throw some ad dollars his way.

This is the easiest visits they will have. Walk a player through the history of Michigan but he knows there is not a opening at this time. Tour Guide if you will. Standing firm also increases your chances on another year for early interest.

Any OL commits deciding to enroll early are counted toward the prior year's class. So, if a current 2013 commmit tells UM he plans to enroll early, then we would only expect to have four OL commits in the 2013 class. Moreover, we have been waiting on Kozan to decide if he wants to join the 2012 class; and 2013 recruits should know this. Thus, if Kozan decides not to come--or the coaches remove him from consideration--then shouldn't 2013 commits undersand that that a 2013 recruit could take Kozan's place in the 2012 class? In fact, a new 2013 OL recruit who wants to visit here could be told that he may have a place if he wants to consider enrolling early.

Granted, this may seem like a technicality; and BH does need to be careful about recruits' actual understanding of his prior promises. But so far, I have not seen any statements that would rule out the possiblility of another OL.

This is an interesting point and I'd be interesting to know if anyone is enrolling early as well. We've got some smart kids lined up in this class so I don't doubt it. I think all this talk of promises by Hoke is stupid, however, because we don't know what he said. Did any of the recruits say Coach Hoke promised me he would only take 5 OL recruits?? That sounds kind of childish and whiny to me. Also, I really doubt if that was a deal breaker for a kid that Hoke would pander to his desire to have less competition... How does that seem like his style to anyone? I'm pretty surprised everyone has jumped on this stance in this thread. I think it's much more likely he gave an estimate of their initial NEED. They could still WANT another one if he wants to come as well. The only promise I see Hoke making to a recruit is that he'll get a world class global education, he'll compete for Big Ten Championships every year, and if he commits to the program, Hoke will be committed to him.

Can the phrase "mods feel free to delete" be sent to Bolivia? They're mods. They don't need your permission to delete. Try posting something really inflammatory and include "mods don't feel free to delete" just to see what happens.

Of course, it makes sense to allow visits from 4 & 5 star recruits, even if you don't currently have a commitable spot.

We're only guessing that Hoke said, "I am taking 5 OL Commitments, and no more, in the 2013 class."

We don't know that all 5 current verbal commits will stick (a la Caleb Stacey.)

We don't know if there will be any attrition from current OL players at Michigan. (unlikely, but who knows.)

I would be shocked, but it is possible that one of the incoming class could come in way out of shape and not make it through the season, opening up a spot.

We don't know how much attrition there will be in general.

It always is good to have several spots available for the best available at signing day. For instance, because Michigan struck out this year in the last week (Diamond et al,) it opened up a surprise spot on signing day, which went to running back Norfleet, iirc.

We don't know whether or not Kozan will come to Michigan. Unlikely, but possible.

If Kozan comes, and everyone sticks, there is no room. If Kozan doesn't come, and we lose someone from the incoming class, and there is other attrition, maybe you make room for Tunsil or Pocic, if they want to come.

To be fair to the recruits, who ever heard of receiving five 4 star OL recruits a year early? I don't blame Pocic for wanting to take his time and not be rushed into a decision. But it becomes clear that sometimes, if you snooze, you lose.

The staff was prepared to take 6-7 guys in the 2012 class but only ended up with 4 (barring an ayahuasca-induced change of heart on the part of Alex Kozan). Hoke has said he wants the total number of scholarship players on the OL to be in the neighborhood of 14-16. Next year we'll have 12 and 4 of them graduate. Lewan (maybe Schofield?) will have NFL interest as well.

Just to tread water at 12 we need to take 4-5 and Coach Hoke has repeatedly said he wants to lift that number. That combined with the offers still out there pretty strongly indicate that we aren't done trying to bring in additional offensive linemen in this class.

I also sincerely doubt the staff ever told anyone we were taking 5 and no more.

There's no reason not to let kids visit. There's always a chance that kids will decommit (Caleb Stacey), kids will get injured (Christian Pace), or kids will transfer (Dann O'Neil). If a kid transfers after the season, you don't want to be left in the cold because you didn't allow kids to visit your school. But you should be honest and say "At this time we're not looking to take another commitment, but things can always change."

There has been a sort of "All aboard Team 134" vibe to Hoke's recruiting. He seems to be pitching this from the "This team will be tremendous, and I hope you (recruit) take this opportunity to be a part of that." This protects the value of Michigan among recruits by putting the program first, after all this is Michigan, fergodssakes.

Breaking away from explicitly stated team needs because of a special talent degrades the value of committing to Michigan.

Seems a few of you are forgetting that we let B. Dunn visit last year while he was still a verbal commit to OSU. There is nothing wrong with letting committed kids visit if they want. There is something wrong though with taking another OL commit at this point if you have told your guys that you are ONLY taking 5. We have no idea what Hoke has said on this matter though I would bet it is something along the lines of we would like to take 5. Its like someone said if all your needs are met and you have spots still available why would you not take the best available players that want to come. Meaning if we have all the positions filled for the class but #2, #28, and #33 want to commit why not take them if you have the open spots.

Yes, because you never know what's going to happen between now and signing day. I would think that after Hoke addresses depth that there would be a couple of scholarships left for best available talent.

I'm confident the coaches will handle this well, and I understand why you let kids continue to visit (decommits, injuries, transfers). All that said, if I'm one the 5 commits and was told we were only taking 5 OL in this class (as rumored), then the staff immediately tells 3 more players they can commit if they want, I'd want an explanation at the least.

Here is a caveat: we don’t know exactly what Hoke told the current five commits. Did he tell them he is taking five, full stop, no two ways about it? Or was it more hedged, as in, “We’re probably taking five”?

I suspect it is the latter. For one thing, it is never wise to box yourself into a corner, and I don’t think Hoke would make that mistake.

For another thing, Michigan is still under-manned on the offensive line. Hoke has said that the ideal number is about 15. As of now, Michigan would be at 13 in the fall of 2013. And they clearly were willing to take one or two more in the 2012 class, if either Josh Garnett or Jordan Diamond had committed. In fact, I think they would have accepted both.

With five comitted for 2013, they can afford to be very choosy, but if the right guy is interested, they ought to take him. Now, if Hoke in fact did make the iron-clad statement that Michigan is taking five, then I don’t think he should allow any more visits. I am just skeptical that Hoke actually said precisely that.

I was thinking absolutely not but with today's recruiting it is a necessary evil that comes with recruiting. On one hand you have to worry about guys like "TCIO" (that coach in Ohio) nabbing recruits at the last minute and on the other missing out on a 5* recruit. Would I invite him? Not at this point and especially after the commitment to the program that these five kids have shown. Hoke is doing what he said he wanted to do which is go after kids in the Midwest which is how the old regimes at Michigan were successful. So the real questions should be situational and not just because he is a 5*. Like, do I go after a Florida 5* or 5 4* kids that really want to be here, with one of them being a top 50. You cant stop a kid from coming, but you dont have to accept his commitment. Yes its a grey area but letting a kid know that you can come in but right now we dont have a spot for you seems to be okay with me. IMO, you have to keep the lines of communication open with everyone because recruiting is a National War that ends in February each year and not when a kid verbally commits throughout the year.